The Second Paradigm Shift of Organization
The first paradigm shift for humankind began when man discovered and learned to control fire. At that time, we were able to evolve our cognitive activities in useful and critical ways for survival. Better nutrition allowed our ancestors to learn to communicate, form specific roles and tasks, and conquer new challenges. With even more brain power, we developed new tools to further our advancement in society.
To understand how this happened, let’s look back in time. Two hundred thousand years ago, the oldest patriarch who acquired fire-building skills would probably be the most dominant male compared to another man without that skill set. Prehistoric women sought security, while their male counterparts focused on perpetuating the species. Women would organize in groups to perform similar tasks like care taking, cooking, and cleaning, while the men would form a hierarchy that included dominant, alpha males. These alpha males often led the hunt for game. Fire was the backbone of an organized society allowing for group stability with planned resource expenditure.
During times of limited resources, men fought over females, while society cast out unproductive members. Competition in group breeding would produce a limited number of natural-born leaders. Only those with the best predisposition were able to adapt and survive.
A fair system rewards the player in proportion to the societal problems that they solve. The player has opportunities to succeed through solving problems in the world. However, America is at its breaking point. We’ve exhausted the world by attempting to police activities and have failed to create necessary human resources that other nations have developed. We’ve created short-term “band-aid” solutions to ongoing world issues.
For example, instead of identifying and solving problems, we have infrastructure nightmares and incarceration rates double that of South Africa. Our world leaders are not always favoring change. Instead, they are resisting change by redirecting public opinion and controlling influence. We do not have abundant resources because of the many barriers to entry for innovation, and because there are laws that go against human nature.
An example of human rights in a stable society: the right to protect yourself; today means owning a gun. If someone breaks into your house, the police are minutes away. We, as Americans, have the right to defend against unlawful acts through the use of force as a last resort. The last resort is one which, once removed, will ensure that the absolute power becomes corrupt.
The increase in marijuana use has now become a method of reducing gun rights. A user of marijuana now has to declare it on their background check and will then be denied permission to purchase a legal firearm. The systematic regulation of firearms has made it to where Americans who’d like to bear arms are thus forced to object to government interference.
We’re raised to believe that the purpose of government is to help society function, so that businesses and civilians can effectively exchange value and survive. Instead of identifying who needs help or who has underutilized-potential and helping them, we find a government trying to build the world’s most significant military. I don’t support paying for the world’s largest military or creating laws to empower the world’s biggest private prison system. I also do not support reducing the effectiveness of the last resort against complete corruption. Power should be distributed to avoid unfair negations. The U.S. Military has too much power in the world to say that corruption isn’t omnipresent and increasing.
We live in the second paradigm shift of organization. The transition into technology and innovation has begun, but we don’t have a perfectly functioning society. With an unequal distribution of power, it is possible that we will fail as a species through our own destructive devices. I like to think that this shift is just the test that we have as a species to earn our place in the Universe. There are an infinite number of opportunities in the construct which we co-habitate, but a finite number of destructive tendencies which must be controlled.